![]() A 15% delta is a gigantic non-correlation from a CPU microarchitecture perspective.Ī ton of the comments in this thread are people crapping on Geekbench because Torvalds said something about it 8 years ago or many other popular talking points which are just wrong. For example it has absolutely zero correlation to compiler performance, though both are "parallel tasks". It's representation of that specific workload. This is why you get a huge SMT yield from it and why it scales very highly if you throw lots of "weak" cores at it, for example see the M1 4C/8C score scaling.Įxcept it's not, and the fact that you are stating this is the whole issue. It's defined by extremely long dependency chains, bottlenecked by caches and partly memory. This is why it gains a ton on Intel CPUs when you raise the uncore frequency Ĭinebench absolutely isn't a computational throughput workload. CB is very much the anti-throughput test, an obvious thing if you look at the power consumption of the cores. Recent caches are big enough to not affect it much. There's non-correlation of 15-18% between the 10900K and the 5900/5950X which is extremely large, and points out that you cannot use CB to directly predict gaming FPS. This is not a correlation between the workloads but a correlation between the strengths and balanced design improvements of the designs. The only reason you get a linear correlation between generational chips is because at the same time they are improving the microarchitectural aspects of the cores that affect Cinebench you also get other, non-related microarchitecture updates and improvements that also affect gaming. This is just completely wrong reasoning and /u/senttoschool is completely right. The suite isn't simply designed to showcase a representative set of workloads that users would use, but actually showcase a representative set of workloads that stress different parts of the CPU microarchitecture and in turn are representative of general purpose computing workloads in general. ![]() I'm in charge of the SPEC suite at AT and very much agree with you here. I heavily favour Geekbench over Cinebench and very much agree with what's being said by OP. Just based on pure logic, shouldn't Geekbench5 be a better free CPU benchmark than Cinebench because SPEC is the standard in CPU benchmarking?Įdit: Anandtech's Andrei ( andreif ) has chimed in: However, Geekbench 5 is highly correlated with SPEC (nearly 1:1) based on research done by the chip design team at Nuvia. ![]() It's actually pretty hard to find another application that share the same 1t results with Cinebench. In addition, Cinebench's 1t results does not correlate with 1t results from SPEC, Geekbench, Excel, gaming, etc. Why does it seem like it's the standard for CPU benchmarks now?įor example, Cinebench simply does not correlate with gaming performance between AMD and Intel: I noticed that its results generally don't correlate with other benchmarks and it's a benchmark for a relatively niche software.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |